My understanding of the case against George Zimmerman (feedback sought)

[Bucky]

It's a complicated case (especially considering the sole survivor of the confrontation is the accused) and I may not have all the facts right. I'd like people to help me understand the facts and legalities here. I'm presenting this as I understand it, but I'm not asserting perfect knowledge of the facts. Correct me politely please.

Here's what I understand from the night's events.

1. Zimmerman had appointed himself "neighborhood watch" but saw Trayvon Martin from his home and followed in his car
2. Zimmerman claims he got out to stop Martin from leaving, but asserts his gun was in the car when the fight started
3. Zimmerman claims that once Martin turned on him, he fled to his car, got his gun out, then got scuffled to the ground, and then shot up to save himself from the attack.

Prosecutors, seeking murder two, have to establish 3 things...

1. Zimmerman followed Martin in his car
2. Zimmerman failed to follow police directive not to follow or engage Martin
3. Zimmerman instigated a confrontation with Martin

So here's my argument.

The first two facts Zimmerman basically admits to. It's his claim that at some point, Martin attacked him... and that's why he went back to his car and got his gun. But why would Martin attack. Look at the situation. It's night time on a secluded street. A teenager out at night becomes aware that a car is following him. He walks faster and the driver of the car suddenly gets out tries to stop that teenager from getting back home. The driver has no sign or badge of authority. This is scary; and unequivocally a threat to the teenager.

What's he going to do? According to Florida law, he has a right to defend himself, to stand his ground. He's not threatening any property, being on a public street and not being near anyone else's home. He's not threatening any person--the street is secluded and the mysterious car and driver has been following him. He wasn't, at that point in a position to run away--not from a car. Threatened like that, the kid had do something.

Trayvon Martin was incontestably standing his ground. If Stand Your Ground is a justifiable defense for actions carried out while under assault, then the person instigating the fight should be by definition an assailant. He may not have intended to seem like a stalker, but Zimmerman stalked. He may not have intended to seem like an assailant, but the very fact of confronting a pedestrian is by definition and purpose is presenting oneself (Zimmerman) as threatening to the person one is trying to stop (Martin).

Even if Zimmerman didn't have his gun out (and that's a huge if) Zimmerman was assailing Martin without authority to do so.

Questions

If Zimmerman thought Martin was a threat to the neighborhood, why wouldn't he get his gun out?

If Zimmerman didn't have a gun with him, why would he interdict Martin?

By best accounts, Martin was on top of Zimmerman when he was shot. Zimmerman shot him because he was being bested in a fight.

If Martin was able to get the jump on an unarmed Zimmerman, then how would Zimmerman be able to get away, go over to his car, get his gun, take it off safety, still get tackled by Martin, and then be able to shoot up at his attacker?

If Martin was besting Zimmerman in that first round and Zimmerman was able to get to his car, then why didn't he just drive off or at least shut the door? How could he get to his gun in a way that he wasn't able to get to his keys?

The "left the gun in the car" story just doesn't make sense.

..aaaand my hypothesis

On the other hand, the facts we have make a hell of a lot more sense if Zimmerman had his gun out when he exited the car. If he saw Martin as a trouble maker, he would want to confront him from a position of power. If that's the case, then he wouldn't have left the gun in the car. But if he did have the gun with him, it would make more sense for Trayvon Martin to try and jump him. You turn your back on an armed guy who's been following you and run down an open street only at great personal risk. Confronted by a guy with a gun and no uniform, badge, or other sign of authority, you can fight or take flight. But if taking flight seems more dangerous, then you have to defend yourself against this person who has orchestrated this dangerous confrontation.

My guess is this: George Zimmerman had his gun out from the start and ordered the teenager to stop, but was not visually distinguishable from a kidnapper, mugger, or worse. Trayvon Martin, with no option to flee, saw an opening, which makes sense since he quickly got on top of Zimmerman, tried to beat the guy who was assailing him. Once he was on top of his attacker and hitting him and possibly trying to wrest control of the gun, that's when Zimmerman fired and killed Martin.

That might seem like self defense to Zimmerman, but only if we ignore the facts that he (1) stalked and intimidated Martin, (2) ignored 911's directives not to following him, and (3) instigated a showdown with a kid he had no right, authority, or cause to interdict. When you include the facts, Zimmerman is an assailant and the only aggressor here.

If he's not guilty of at least manslaughter, the state of Florida has just legalized dueling.

[Mr.Bill]

1. It's not much of a duel

when only one guy has a gun.

[orpupilofnature57]

2. By not complying with police he broke the law before...

he took it in to his own hands, fact.

[WinkyDink]

6. Let's say he never was told not to follow. He nevertheless stalked Trayvon Martin WITHOUT

AUTHORITY.

IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS YOU OR I OR ANYONE ELSE POSTING HERE DECIDING TO FOLLOW, TO STALK SOMEONE.

[Bucky]

7. That helps to know. Is he claiming he hadn't drawn yet when the tussle started?

I'm not sure I understand the sequencing after the warning not to follow. If he wasn't following Martin after 911 told him he didn't need to (not the most exact turn of phrase there), then how could there be a fight at all? Wouldn't Trayvon have walked out of his sight at that point if Zimmerman was not following?

[Bucky]

15. That raises more questions.

Why would Martin single out Zimmerman for an attack... especially after Martin had just dashed off when it was clear Zimmerman was calling somebody? Anyone with a lick of sense would at least suspect that he'd called the police. With the cops coming, why take the trouble to sneak up behind someone and jump him?

I mean, sure, tempers can get flared. I work with teens, I've seen 'em just go off. But when it happens, it's a territorial thing. Martin couldn't have possibly considered the street his turf if, at worst case, he was scoping out houses for mischief. Then, when the authorites are en route, teen check in their temper real fast and certainly don't step up a pre-fisticuffs conflict into an ambush style attack, which seems to be Zimmerman's story...

The more I read about his case, the suspiciouser I get.

[Bucky]

21. For all the remaining ignorance on the matter...

...this has still been an enlightening discussion. Thanks for pitching in.

And welcome to DU

[HangOnKids]

23. He's Gone!

Jesus that was quick!

[Bucky]

24. Was he a troll? I thought his points were reasonable

I detected a slight bias away from convicting Zimmerman, but nothing outrageous or unsubstainable. He pretty much stuck to the facts.

Maybe he's just a previously banned troll.

[csziggy]

30. Zimmerman was on the phone for a minute and forty five seconds

AFTER the operator told him he didn't need to follow Martin. During that time, Zimmerman agreed to meet the police at or just past the clubhouse. Martin was already out of sight at that point. Zimmerman refused to give his address to the dispatcher since as he told her, "oh crap I don’t want to give it all out, I don’t know where this kid is."

There are three minutes AFTER the Zimmerman call to Sanford PD ends until the gunshot is heard over the phone during a 911 call by a witness. For the first 45 seconds of that call, repeated screams of "HELP" can be heard. The last scream cuts off in the middle of the word as the gunshot is heard.

See my post http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2941174 for a detailed timeline.

[Bucky]

17. correction: Here's a couple of articles saying Zimmerman pursued Martin AFTER being told not to

http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/12/justice/florida-teen-shooting/index.html?_s=PM:JUSTICE

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-12/news/os-trayvon-martin-george-zimmerman-charged-jail-20120412_1_face-murder-charges-today-show-accident

It seems to be a critical point in the prosecutor's case against Zimmerman.

[DrDan]

4. just out of curiosity - is a request from a 911 dispatcher considered to be a "police directive"?

[Bucky]

11. As above, it's not the best choice of wording.

I expect that when an operator from 911 tells someone "We don't need you to do that" it's pretty clear one should not do that. Just as clear a saying "OK" indicates assent to that (let's call it) request.

911 dispatcher: Are you following him? {2:24}

Zimmerman: Yeah. {2:25}

911 dispatcher: OK. We don’t need you to do that. {2:26}

Zimmerman: OK. {2:28}

911 dispatcher: Alright, sir, what is your name? {2:34}

Zimmerman: George. He ran.

http://www.examiner.com/article/george-zimmerman-s-911-call-transcribed

[DrDan]

12. I understand one should not do that - but what is the legal interpretation

of a request from a 911 operator

police directive or not?

[Voice for Peace]

38. not 911, it was non-emergency dispatcher

who has said if I recall correctly that they are not
allowed to specifically give commands.

[Bucky]

19. I have listened since this thread started. Nothing's conclusive.

It seems pretty clear that both men felt threatened prior to the fight. However only one seems to have standing to feel that threat, and the other had the option of not getting out of his car to ramp up that confrontation.

I do think it's pretty important if, as you wondered, "Martin turned around and caught up with Zimmerman." Depending on what "caught up with" entails, it might very well be illegal.

[WinkyDink]

5. Z's is the "Chutzpah Plea": Claiming self-defense after having provoked the fight.

[Bucky]

8. Sounds more like an a-hole plea. Chutzpah would be if he asked for leniency....

... because he's just been through a terrible ordeal lately.

[WinkyDink]

16. I'll take it!

[krispos42]

14. I understand he's not pleading "Stand Your Ground"

SYG is for when you are legally in a public place and somebody threatens you with imminent and serious bodily harm. You have no obligation to turn your back and try to flee before you use deadly force to protect yourself, and in some places you can't be tried for murder in criminal courts or sued by the relatives of the person you killed in civil court if it was covered by that definition. He's not claiming he acted in self-defense and is protected by SYG.


Justifiable homicide, without SYG, generally requires somebody to admit they killed somebody, then for the defendant to plead to the jury that it was necessary. In other words, the defendant has to admit they killed but prove beyond a reasonable doubt it was justified, rather than the prosecution proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant killed somebody.

[grok]

25. He WILL plead it

He just didn't before the trial. He did NOT surrender the right and can do so at any time. More than likely right before jury deliberations..

The rationale make sense, if he would have claimed SYG and lost, he would have needlessly exposed his legal strategy to the prosecution. Forewarned, the prosecution would have had an easier time refuting the points of his defense.

Zimmeman WANTS/NEEDS SYG to kick in. SYG prevents other parties taking civil action against you in the future. Just being found innocent doesn't prevent your from being sued(Trayvon's parents). Look what happened to to OJ Simpson. Was vound innocent but lost everything in civil court(where the level of proof is much lower)

[grok]

18. point by point

it seems you got quite a bit wrong... or are assuming too much.. doesn't mean zimmerman is innocent or guilty though.

first part

1. he volunteered as a neighbourhood watchman. and was accepted as such by the gated community. he had regular meetings with police as their spokesman on public safety and as liaison.

2. as far as i know(could be wrong) he had his pistol on him at ALL times during the incident. and was licensed and legally allowed to do so. A fine point does exist that as designated watchman, he was not supposed to carry a weapon, yet as a private citizen, he had the LEGAL right to do so anyway.. when he became a watchman and stopped merely being a private citizen is definitely contestable.

3.as far as i know, zimmerman claims trayvon appeared or was waiting around a corner and assaulted him. during the scuffle where zimmerman was on his back, zimmerman claims trayvon discovered zimmerman was armed and tried to take his weapon from him. and threatened to kill him.

second part.

1 his car was parked several yards away from where zimmerman lost sight of trayvon. zimmerman claims he got out of the car to find out exactly where he was(address) to tell the police. zimmerman lived on the other side of the gated community.

2. It is definitely true zimmerman did walk to the point where he lost track trayvon (a corner). as far as the legality of his doing so after being advised not to do follow by the dispatcher(whom i don't even know is a cop), i would say he had the right to do so just as trayvon ALSO had the right to be anywhere in the community himself . the advisement is just common sense, not a COMMAND zimmerman is legally compelled to HAVE to follow. trayvon could have been armed and/or dangerous and zimmerman needlessly could have exposed himself to such.. just because a cop tells you to do something, doesnt mean you LEGALLY have to(like stop filming a cop illegally beating up a suspect, or providing an id needlessly), just that you better be sure of your rights.

Don't know about your hypothesis..

For ACTUAL facts on the case(and not mere emotion) i would recommend..

http://www.talkleft.com AND http://diwataman.wordpress.com

the former is rather comprehensive on the legal situation. Mostly from a civil liberty point of view. Left of center.

the latter is rather opinionated but also is the most complete resource of all the facts and documention of the case i have seen to date. You will be challenged and annoyed by it.

[orpupilofnature57]

22. Your second point of the first part is fuzzy...

Did he want to legally carry a gun, or be responsible .

[grok]

26. he had a concealed weapons permit

so he had a right to have the weapon on him. PERIOD. and so did his wife..

http://cfnews13.com/content/dam/news/static/cfnews13/documents/2012/12/zimmerman-fdle-gun-permit-documents.pdf

What i *DON"T* know for sure is how being a watchman effects his right to bear a weapon. clearly he wasn't supposed to. but that seems to me more a civil agreement with the gated community and not the police. I very much doubt it's criminal.

[Skittles]

27. he's a paranoid gun humper

there's nothing responsible about that coward

[grok]

28. could be

his and hs wife's premise for getting the gun permits is fear of pitbulls in the area.

guess that could be considered cowardly

[Skittles]

29. the man is a vigilante wannabe

there's NOTHING responsible about him - NOTHING

[Honeycombe8]

33. He was not the designated watchman. He named himself that...the neighborhood

disagreed with his actions and had complained about it at meetings. But beyond that, they did not put a stop to it. Still, he was not the "designated watchman," except in his own mind.

[grok]

34. I doubt everybody would ever agree with anything

"designated" is my word, i could be wrong about that..

I am curious though. do you have a credible link about the HOA complaints and/or disagreements ? I'd like to see that... First i heard of it.

In any case he appears(just found out) to have NOT been on duty at the time. so additional restrictions on him are probably moot. Just a private citizen with a legal gun permit.. allowed to go anywhere in that community.

Which sort of begs the question why the HOA settled with The Martins.... Probably wanted it over with..

[Honeycombe8]

35. He couldn't be on "duty," since he had no official duty to serve doing anything.

He was not the "designated watchman" or "watchman" or anything for the HOA, except in his own mind.

That's what I read in several articles that came out in the beginning when the incident happened. I'll look for some links, but they were discussed her in DU. There were quotes for HOA members & such.

[grok]

36. i actually found a couple links

but they are pretty vague and like you said, in the beginning..

.... this is one of the better ones...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/12/george-zimmerman-trayvon-martin_n_1340358.html

Not sure if the complainer was stable but he did know how to contract the Huffington post. i wonder if it's the guy who likes to run his pitbull without a leash.

[Honeycombe8]

39. I stand corrected. I have since found out differently. The members didn't want to admit it....

but there was a newsletter by the HOA that identified him as the neighborhood watch guy to contact or something.

Gotta be careful with these criminal cases and the media. Hard to sort out hearsay from fact and evidence.

[Voice for Peace]

37. I believe he independently started up the neighborhood watch group

with himself as captain, and he made an official connection with
the police department who sent someone to give a presentation to
him and other interested parties in that community.

I think the police invited him to be part of a more formal
local watch group and he declined.

EDIT: I "think".. "I believe.." LOLOL

[cheyanne]

31. Your understanding of murder two is wrong.

Your No. 1 and 2 points are not considered a part of murder two.

Please go to the Talk Left website (leftist lawyer site) for legal definitions of what the defense and prosecution have to prove, as well as timelines, and discussions of evidence and lawyer strategies. This site is strictly curated for accuracy and bias.

It is deeply important that discussions of the trial are not tainted by non-legal issues or misinformation. To do so, encourages a misunderstanding of what the legal process can and should do as opposed to what the social/political processes can do. This can lead to a lack of respect for our legal system.

Racism and gun control are not part of the legal issues involved in this case; they are social issues.

As from the TalkLeft website, here is what the prosecution has to prove:

At least one of the following must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.Zimmerman was committing a forcible felony at the start of the physical conflict with Martin. For example, trying to forcibly detain him.
2.Zimmerman did not have a reasonable fear of great bodily harm at the time he shot Martin.
3.Both a) and b) below must be proven BRD.
a)Zimmerman was the initial provoker of the conflict with Martin.
b)Zimmerman could have safely withdrawn from the fight but chose not to do so.


Zimmerman's defense is self-defense, which is explained at this site.

I have not found that Zimmerman claims to have returned to his car for his gun. Please provide link.

[Honeycombe8]

32. Those facts are not what I read at the time & in the tapes.

1. Zimmerman was out trolling that night already, when he spotted Martin.
2. Zimmerman was in his car on the phone w/the cops, reporting a suspicious acting guy, when he told P.D. that Martin was walking toward his car.
3. Zimmerman got out of his car when Martin was walking toward Zimmerman's car.
4. Zimmerman had been told by the P.D. to stand down, not follow Martin any longer, MAYBE not get out of his car (not sure), which Zimmerman disregarded.


5. Martin talks to Zimmerman, asking him why he's following him (girlfriend's statement)...I THINK you can also hear Martin talk to Zimmerman while Zimmerman is still on the phone with the P.D. in his car.